Women's rights is grouped into civil rights and personal freedoms. Whereas race-related issues (such as drug reform, criminal reform, and immigration) are brought up under four different squares--personal freedoms, civil rights, criminal justice reform, and immigration. In fact, two of those squares are in the top row.

This makes sense given the Seattle protests. I see what you're trying to do. I respect that.

But women's rights were a large part of the GOP debate and a huge part of the support for Clinton. Do they need rude protesters to interrupt a speech before they get their own square?

It takes two clicks to get to anything on women's rights.

And you know what the best proof is that it's not easily-accessible enough or emphasized enough? The fact that we're not the first ones to ask you.

A quick search reveals you've been questioned on this several times, but what do any of these people know?

And I've watched plenty of his interviews--he always speaks about income inequality, the eroding middle class, the Citizens united ruling, and money in politics. Why not fill in the gaps?

Look clearly I'm irritated and I doubt I'll change your mind, but at least I got that off my chest. There's a reason there's a misconception (to some extent) about Bernie being supported by/most favorable towards white males. And this website, while addressing the former concern, does not do any favors for the latter concern.

If you define urine as coming from the bladder, sure, but they are different liquids. And it's not pissed, it is literally typically ejaculated. It's absurd to identify liquids with different chemical compositions as the same because they accumulate in the same place.

Also, if you squirt in smaller volumes, it's likely not coming from the bladder at all (not discussed in this paper), but still coming through the urethra.

Edit: I wondered why someone would use a term as silly as "piss", and then I realized I was arguing with a red-piller. LOL.

They concluded that the amount of prostatic secretions into the fluid was statistically insignificant. However, 2 of their participants had NO prostatic secretions at all--not before, during, or after squirting.

In the remaining 5 participants, 4/5 had an increase in prostatic secretions. From here on out, I'm going to refer to the prostatic secretions as PSA (prostate-specific antigens).

In BSU, PSA was undetectable for all participants except one. For most of women (n = 5), PSA became detectable in S and remained detectable in ASU. For two women, PSA was undetectable in all samples (participants P2 and P7)[...]However, PSA concentrations at S were significantly higher than at BSU (P < 0.05) but not at ASU (P < 0.07).

So, they did a Kruskall-Wallis test on either the remaining 5 samples(which is typically the smallest recommended sample size for this test) or 7 samples and somehow fucking found significance in the presence of PSA during squirting. They found that the amount of PSA in fluid emitted during squirting was statistically different from a pre-sexual stimulation urination in the amount of PSA that it contains in a sample of ONLY 5-7 women.

Note: I had to guess at how big of a sample size they use for their statistics, because they don't actually tell you what n is. /r/shittyscience

They also found that the amount of PSA is only statistically different between squirting and after-squirting urination IF you set p<0.07 (rather than the standard, 0.05). Now that is not surprising given that there is urine coming out of the same urethra that squirting came out of, so it makes sense for leftover PSA to be there. All that being said, given p<0.07, it seems likely that with a larger sample size, the p-value would decrease, indicating statistical difference in the p-value between squirting and post-sexual stimulation urination as well.

And I would make you a lovely table of these values except, guess what, They DON'T PROVIDE THEM. Why? Who knows. All they do is graph them, give you the range and the median. And BOY ARE THE RANGES HUGE.

**Now given the fact that they include 0 in their ranges, I'm assuming they included 0 in their calculations (AKA women who don't secrete any PSA at all under any conditions), which makes it more amazing they found statistical significance in squirting PSA increases with only the remaining 4/7 having increases in PSA, 2 of which PSA concentration=0).

Now the previously ellipsed sentence was this one:

Differences of urea, creatinine, and uric acid concentrations among BSU, S, and ASU did not reach statistical signification.

So this graph was a mess. There are absolutely NO conclusions that can be made. It's not even that the differences weren't statistically significant: there are no consistent patterns in the data. Not one. Creatinine, urea, and uric acid go up for some women, down for others, stay the same, aren't statistically significant. I can only speculate that these numbers are related to traditional urine that was present in the bladder beforehand.

Ultrasound scans

Basically they do ultrasound scans of the bladder before squirting, but after urination, and find that the bladder is empty. Then they find during squirting the bladder fills up. After squirting, the bladder empties.

Basically, an empty bladder fills up during squirting and empties after squirting.

A reasonable conclusion is that the bladder uniquely fills up with some liquid that contains PSA as well as renal secretions during sexual stimulation and that liquid is emitted from the bladder during orgasm

Instead, the authors spend most of the discussion referencing other old papers, arguing this fluid amount is too large to be considered female ejaculation (which is an old argument), disagreeing with Wimpssinger et al and Zavic et al,and in one sentence, discounting their ONLY statistically significant finding with this sentence

The observation that most of the participants had detectable PSA concentrations in the squirting fluid (S) may be explained by the fact that their prostate had been mechanically stimulated during sexual activity.

And what about the 1/4 women who had even more PSA than the others?

Moreover, the observation that one of the participants showed sizable PSA concentrations in BSU remains unclear

That's it.

Then the authors spend more time attacking Wimpssinger et al, telling them that although women reported to Wimpssinger et al that squirting enriched their sex-life, those women probably didn't know what they were talking about

In a recent study, Wimpissinger et al. [2] reported that around four of five women with female ejaculation (or squirting) considered that this event represented an “enrichment” of their sexual life. Unfortunately, these authors have included all cases of very limited fluid expulsion (0.3 mL) and those of abundant liquid emission (15 to over 150 mL). As the volume of the emitted fluid presumably exerts an influence on the women's perception of this event, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that abundant squirting during sexual activity may represent a real problem to some of them.

These authors clearly set out with a conclusion in mind and to disprove Wimpsinger, ignored all statistically significant findings in their own paper, to conclude that it was urine AND that it does not enrich women's sex lives, despite women saying it does.

They concluded that the amount of prostatic secretions into the fluid was statistically insignificant. However, 2 of their participants had NO prostatic secretions at all--not before, during, or after squirting.

In the remaining 5 participants, 4/5 had an increase in prostatic secretions. From here on out, I'm going to refer to the prostatic secretions as PSA (prostate-specific antigens).

In BSU, PSA was undetectable for all participants except one. For most of women (n = 5), PSA became detectable in S and remained detectable in ASU. For two women, PSA was undetectable in all samples (participants P2 and P7)[...]However, PSA concentrations at S were significantly higher than at BSU (P < 0.05) but not at ASU (P < 0.07).

So, they did a Kruskall-Wallis test on either the remaining 5 samples(which is typically the smallest recommended sample size for this test) or 7 samples and somehow fucking found significance in the presence of PSA during squirting. They found that the amount of PSA in fluid emitted during squirting was statistically different from a pre-sexual stimulation urination in the amount of PSA that it contains in a sample of ONLY 5-7 women.

Note: I had to guess at how big of a sample size they use for their statistics, because they don't actually tell you what n is. /r/shittyscience

They also found that the amount of PSA is only statistically different between squirting and after-squirting urination IF you set p<0.07 (rather than the standard, 0.05). Now that is not surprising given that there is urine coming out of the same urethra that squirting came out of, so it makes sense for leftover PSA to be there. All that being said, given p<0.07, it seems likely that with a larger sample size, the p-value would decrease, indicating statistical difference in the p-value between squirting and post-sexual stimulation urination as well.

And I would make you a lovely table of these values except, guess what, They DON'T PROVIDE THEM. Why? Who knows. All they do is graph them, give you the range and the median. And BOY ARE THE RANGES HUGE.

**Now given the fact that they include 0 in their ranges, I'm assuming they included 0 in their calculations (AKA women who don't secrete any PSA at all under any conditions), which makes it more amazing they found statistical significance in squirting PSA increases with only the remaining 4/7 having increases in PSA, 2 of which PSA concentration=0).

Now the previously ellipsed sentence was this one:

Differences of urea, creatinine, and uric acid concentrations among BSU, S, and ASU did not reach statistical signification.

So this graph was a mess. There are absolutely NO conclusions that can be made. It's not even that the differences weren't statistically significant: there are no consistent patterns in the data. Not one. Creatinine, urea, and uric acid go up for some women, down for others, stay the same, aren't statistically significant. I can only speculate that these numbers are related to traditional urine that was present in the bladder beforehand.

Ultrasound scans

Basically they do ultrasound scans of the bladder before squirting, but after urination, and find that the bladder is empty. Then they find during squirting the bladder fills up. After squirting, the bladder empties.

Basically, an empty bladder fills up during squirting and empties after squirting.

A reasonable conclusion is that the bladder uniquely fills up with some liquid that contains PSA as well as renal secretions during sexual stimulation and that liquid is emitted from the bladder during orgasm

Instead, the authors spend most of the discussion referencing other old papers, arguing this fluid amount is too large to be considered female ejaculation (which is an old argument), disagreeing with Wimpssinger et al and Zavic et al,and in one sentence, discounting their ONLY statistically significant finding with this sentence

The observation that most of the participants had detectable PSA concentrations in the squirting fluid (S) may be explained by the fact that their prostate had been mechanically stimulated during sexual activity.

And what about the 1/4 women who had even more PSA than the others?

Moreover, the observation that one of the participants showed sizable PSA concentrations in BSU remains unclear

That's it.

Then the authors spend more time attacking Wimpssinger et al, telling them that although women reported to Wimpssinger et al that squirting enriched their sex-life, those women probably didn't know what they were talking about

In a recent study, Wimpissinger et al. [2] reported that around four of five women with female ejaculation (or squirting) considered that this event represented an “enrichment” of their sexual life. Unfortunately, these authors have included all cases of very limited fluid expulsion (0.3 mL) and those of abundant liquid emission (15 to over 150 mL). As the volume of the emitted fluid presumably exerts an influence on the women's perception of this event, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that abundant squirting during sexual activity may represent a real problem to some of them.

These authors clearly set out with a conclusion in mind and to disprove Wimpsinger, ignored all statistically significant findings in their own paper, to conclude that it was urine AND that it does not enrich women's sex lives, despite women saying it does.

They concluded that the amount of prostatic secretions into the fluid was statistically insignificant. However, 2 of their participants had NO prostatic secretions at all--not before, during, or after squirting.

In the remaining 5 participants, 4/5 had an increase in prostatic secretions. From here on out, I'm going to refer to the prostatic secretions as PSA (prostate-specific antigens).

In BSU, PSA was undetectable for all participants except one. For most of women (n = 5), PSA became detectable in S and remained detectable in ASU. For two women, PSA was undetectable in all samples (participants P2 and P7)[...]However, PSA concentrations at S were significantly higher than at BSU (P < 0.05) but not at ASU (P < 0.07).

So, they did a Kruskall-Wallis test on either the remaining 5 samples(which is typically the smallest recommended sample size for this test) or 7 samples and somehow fucking found significance in the presence of PSA during squirting. They found that the amount of PSA in fluid emitted during squirting was statistically different from a pre-sexual stimulation urination in the amount of PSA that it contains in a sample of ONLY 5-7 women.

Note: I had to guess at how big of a sample size they use for their statistics, because they don't actually tell you what n is. /r/shittyscience

They also found that the amount of PSA is only statistically different between squirting and after-squirting urination IF you set p<0.07 (rather than the standard, 0.05). Now that is not surprising given that there is urine coming out of the same urethra that squirting came out of, so it makes sense for leftover PSA to be there. All that being said, given p<0.07, it seems likely that with a larger sample size, the p-value would decrease, indicating statistical difference in the p-value between squirting and post-sexual stimulation urination as well.

And I would make you a lovely table of these values except, guess what, They DON'T PROVIDE THEM. Why? Who knows. All they do is graph them, give you the range and the median. And BOY ARE THE RANGES HUGE.

**Now given the fact that they include 0 in their ranges, I'm assuming they included 0 in their calculations (AKA women who don't secrete any PSA at all under any conditions), which makes it more amazing they found statistical significance in squirting PSA increases with only the remaining 4/7 having increases in PSA, 2 of which PSA concentration=0).

Now the previously ellipsed sentence was this one:

Differences of urea, creatinine, and uric acid concentrations among BSU, S, and ASU did not reach statistical signification.

So this graph was a mess. There are absolutely NO conclusions that can be made. It's not even that the differences weren't statistically significant: there are no consistent patterns in the data. Not one. Creatinine, urea, and uric acid go up for some women, down for others, stay the same, aren't statistically significant. I can only speculate that these numbers are related to traditional urine that was present in the bladder beforehand.

Ultrasound scans

Basically they do ultrasound scans of the bladder before squirting, but after urination, and find that the bladder is empty. Then they find during squirting the bladder fills up. After squirting, the bladder empties.

Basically, an empty bladder fills up during squirting and empties after squirting.

A reasonable conclusion is that the bladder uniquely fills up with some liquid that contains PSA as well as renal secretions during sexual stimulation and that liquid is emitted from the bladder during orgasm

Instead, the authors spend most of the discussion referencing other old papers, arguing this fluid amount is too large to be considered female ejaculation (which is an old argument), disagreeing with Wimpssinger et al and Zavic et al,and in one sentence, discounting their ONLY statistically significant finding with this sentence

The observation that most of the participants had detectable PSA concentrations in the squirting fluid (S) may be explained by the fact that their prostate had been mechanically stimulated during sexual activity.

And what about the 1/4 women who had even more PSA than the others?

Moreover, the observation that one of the participants showed sizable PSA concentrations in BSU remains unclear

That's it.

Then the authors spend more time attacking Wimpssinger et al, telling them that although women reported to Wimpssinger et al that squirting enriched their sex-life, those women probably didn't know what they were talking about

In a recent study, Wimpissinger et al. [2] reported that around four of five women with female ejaculation (or squirting) considered that this event represented an “enrichment” of their sexual life. Unfortunately, these authors have included all cases of very limited fluid expulsion (0.3 mL) and those of abundant liquid emission (15 to over 150 mL). As the volume of the emitted fluid presumably exerts an influence on the women's perception of this event, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that abundant squirting during sexual activity may represent a real problem to some of them.

These authors clearly set out with a conclusion in mind and to disprove Wimpsinger, ignored all statistically significant findings in their own paper, to conclude that it was urine AND that it does not enrich women's sex lives, despite women saying it does.

They concluded that the amount of prostatic secretions into the fluid was statistically insignificant. However, 2 of their participants had NO prostatic secretions at all--not before, during, or after squirting.

In the remaining 5 participants, 4/5 had an increase in prostatic secretions. From here on out, I'm going to refer to the prostatic secretions as PSA (prostate-specific antigens).

In BSU, PSA was undetectable for all participants except one. For most of women (n = 5), PSA became detectable in S and remained detectable in ASU. For two women, PSA was undetectable in all samples (participants P2 and P7)[...]However, PSA concentrations at S were significantly higher than at BSU (P < 0.05) but not at ASU (P < 0.07).

So, they did a Kruskall-Wallis test on either the remaining 5 samples(which is typically the smallest recommended sample size for this test) or 7 samples and somehow fucking found significance in the presence of PSA during squirting. They found that the amount of PSA in fluid emitted during squirting was statistically different from a pre-sexual stimulation urination in the amount of PSA that it contains in a sample of ONLY 5-7 women.

Note: I had to guess at how big of a sample size they use for their statistics, because they don't actually tell you what n is. /r/shittyscience

They also found that the amount of PSA is only statistically different between squirting and after-squirting urination IF you set p<0.07 (rather than the standard, 0.05). Now that is not surprising given that there is urine coming out of the same urethra that squirting came out of, so it makes sense for leftover PSA to be there. All that being said, given p<0.07, it seems likely that with a larger sample size, the p-value would decrease, indicating statistical difference in the p-value between squirting and post-sexual stimulation urination as well.

And I would make you a lovely table of these values except, guess what, They DON'T PROVIDE THEM. Why? Who knows. All they do is graph them, give you the range and the median. And BOY ARE THE RANGES HUGE.

**Now given the fact that they include 0 in their ranges, I'm assuming they included 0 in their calculations (AKA women who don't secrete any PSA at all under any conditions), which makes it more amazing they found statistical significance in squirting PSA increases with only the remaining 4/7 having increases in PSA, 2 of which PSA concentration=0).

Now the previously ellipsed sentence was this one:

Differences of urea, creatinine, and uric acid concentrations among BSU, S, and ASU did not reach statistical signification.

So this graph was a mess. There are absolutely NO conclusions that can be made. It's not even that the differences weren't statistically significant: there are no consistent patterns in the data. Not one. Creatinine, urea, and uric acid go up for some women, down for others, stay the same, aren't statistically significant. I can only speculate that these numbers are related to traditional urine that was present in the bladder beforehand.

Ultrasound scans

Basically they do ultrasound scans of the bladder before squirting, but after urination, and find that the bladder is empty. Then they find during squirting the bladder fills up. After squirting, the bladder empties.

Basically, an empty bladder fills up during squirting and empties after squirting.

A reasonable conclusion is that the bladder uniquely fills up with some liquid that contains PSA as well as renal secretions during sexual stimulation and that liquid is emitted from the bladder during orgasm

Instead, the authors spend most of the discussion referencing other old papers, arguing this fluid amount is too large to be considered female ejaculation (which is an old argument), disagreeing with Wimpssinger et al and Zavic et al,and in one sentence, discounting their ONLY statistically significant finding with this sentence

The observation that most of the participants had detectable PSA concentrations in the squirting fluid (S) may be explained by the fact that their prostate had been mechanically stimulated during sexual activity.

And what about the 1/4 women who had even more PSA than the others?

Moreover, the observation that one of the participants showed sizable PSA concentrations in BSU remains unclear

That's it.

Then the authors spend more time attacking Wimpssinger et al, telling them that although women reported to Wimpssinger et al that squirting enriched their sex-life, those women probably didn't know what they were talking about

In a recent study, Wimpissinger et al. [2] reported that around four of five women with female ejaculation (or squirting) considered that this event represented an “enrichment” of their sexual life. Unfortunately, these authors have included all cases of very limited fluid expulsion (0.3 mL) and those of abundant liquid emission (15 to over 150 mL). As the volume of the emitted fluid presumably exerts an influence on the women's perception of this event, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that abundant squirting during sexual activity may represent a real problem to some of them.

These authors clearly set out with a conclusion in mind and to disprove Wimpsinger, ignored all statistically significant findings in their own paper, to conclude that it was urine AND that it does not enrich women's sex lives, despite women saying it does.

They concluded that the amount of prostatic secretions into the fluid was statistically insignificant. However, 2 of their participants had NO prostatic secretions at all--not before, during, or after squirting.

In the remaining 5 participants, 4/5 had an increase in prostatic secretions. From here on out, I'm going to refer to the prostatic secretions as PSA (prostate-specific antigens).

In BSU, PSA was undetectable for all participants except one. For most of women (n = 5), PSA became detectable in S and remained detectable in ASU. For two women, PSA was undetectable in all samples (participants P2 and P7)[...]However, PSA concentrations at S were significantly higher than at BSU (P < 0.05) but not at ASU (P < 0.07).

So, they did a Kruskall-Wallis test on either the remaining 5 samples(which is typically the smallest recommended sample size for this test) or 7 samples and somehow fucking found significance in the presence of PSA during squirting. They found that the amount of PSA in fluid emitted during squirting was statistically different from a pre-sexual stimulation urination in the amount of PSA that it contains in a sample of ONLY 5-7 women.

Note: I had to guess at how big of a sample size they use for their statistics, because they don't actually tell you what n is. /r/shittyscience

They also found that the amount of PSA is only statistically different between squirting and after-squirting urination IF you set p<0.07 (rather than the standard, 0.05). Now that is not surprising given that there is urine coming out of the same urethra that squirting came out of, so it makes sense for leftover PSA to be there. All that being said, given p<0.07, it seems likely that with a larger sample size, the p-value would decrease, indicating statistical difference in the p-value between squirting and post-sexual stimulation urination as well.

And I would make you a lovely table of these values except, guess what, They DON'T PROVIDE THEM. Why? Who knows. All they do is graph them, give you the range and the median. And BOY ARE THE RANGES HUGE.

**Now given the fact that they include 0 in their ranges, I'm assuming they included 0 in their calculations (AKA women who don't secrete any PSA at all under any conditions), which makes it more amazing they found statistical significance in squirting PSA increases with only the remaining 4/7 having increases in PSA, 2 of which PSA concentration=0).

Now the previously ellipsed sentence was this one:

Differences of urea, creatinine, and uric acid concentrations among BSU, S, and ASU did not reach statistical signification.

So this graph was a mess. There are absolutely NO conclusions that can be made. It's not even that the differences weren't statistically significant: there are no consistent patterns in the data. Not one. Creatinine, urea, and uric acid go up for some women, down for others, stay the same, aren't statistically significant. I can only speculate that these numbers are related to traditional urine that was present in the bladder beforehand.

Ultrasound scans

Basically they do ultrasound scans of the bladder before squirting, but after urination, and find that the bladder is empty. Then they find during squirting the bladder fills up. After squirting, the bladder empties.

Basically, an empty bladder fills up during squirting and empties after squirting.

A reasonable conclusion is that the bladder uniquely fills up with some liquid that contains PSA as well as renal secretions during sexual stimulation and that liquid is emitted from the bladder during orgasm

Instead, the authors spend most of the discussion referencing other old papers, arguing this fluid amount is too large to be considered female ejaculation (which is an old argument), disagreeing with Wimpssinger et al and Zavic et al,and in one sentence, discounting their ONLY statistically significant finding with this sentence

The observation that most of the participants had detectable PSA concentrations in the squirting fluid (S) may be explained by the fact that their prostate had been mechanically stimulated during sexual activity.

And what about the 1/4 women who had even more PSA than the others?

Moreover, the observation that one of the participants showed sizable PSA concentrations in BSU remains unclear

That's it.

Then the authors spend more time attacking Wimpssinger et al, telling them that although women reported to Wimpssinger et al that squirting enriched their sex-life, those women probably didn't know what they were talking about

In a recent study, Wimpissinger et al. [2] reported that around four of five women with female ejaculation (or squirting) considered that this event represented an “enrichment” of their sexual life. Unfortunately, these authors have included all cases of very limited fluid expulsion (0.3 mL) and those of abundant liquid emission (15 to over 150 mL). As the volume of the emitted fluid presumably exerts an influence on the women's perception of this event, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that abundant squirting during sexual activity may represent a real problem to some of them.

These authors clearly set out with a conclusion in mind and to disprove Wimpsinger, ignored all statistically significant findings in their own paper, to conclude that it was urine AND that it does not enrich women's sex lives, despite women saying it does.

Since this comment is getting more attention, here is a reply I made further below:

OK clearly you have not read the paper. I'm so fucking tired of Reddit's wanna-be scientists.

Let's break it down, ELI5..ok maybe ELI15 style.

Biochemical analysis

They concluded that the amount of prostratic secretions into the fluid was statistically insignificant. However, 2 of their participants had NO prostratic secretions at all--not before, during, or after squirting.

In the remaining 5 participants, 4/5 had an increase in prostratic secretions. From here on out, I'm going to refer to the prostratic secretions as PSA (prostatic secretion antigens).

In BSU, PSA was undetectable for all participants except one. For most of women (n = 5), PSA became detectable in S and remained detectable in ASU. For two women, PSA was undetectable in all samples (participants P2 and P7)[...]However, PSA concentrations at S were significantly higher than at BSU (P < 0.05) but not at ASU (P < 0.07).

So, they did a Kruskall-Wallis test on either the remaining 5 samples(which is typically the smallest recommended sample size for this test) or 7 samples and somehow fucking found significance in the presence of PSA during squirting. They found that the amount of PSA in fluid emitted during squirting was statistically different from a pre-sexual stimulation urination in the amount of PSA that it contains in a sample of ONLY 5-7 women.

Note: I had to guess at how big of a sample size they use for their statistics, because they don't actually tell you what n is. /r/shittyscience

They also found that the amount of PSA is only statistically different between squirting and after-squirting urination IF you set p<0.07 (rather than the standard, 0.05). Now that is not surprising given that there is urine coming out of the same urethra that squirting came out of, so it makes sense for leftover PSA to be there. All that being said, given p<0.07, it seems likely that with a larger sample size, the p-value would decrease, indicating statistical difference in the p-value between squirting and post-sexual stimulation urination as well.

And I would make you a lovely table of these values except, guess what, They DON'T PROVIDE THEM. Why? Who knows. All they do is graph them, give you the range and the median. And BOY ARE THE RANGES HUGE.

**Now given the fact that they include 0 in their ranges, I'm assuming they included 0 in their calculations (AKA women who don't secrete any PSA at all under any conditions), which makes it more amazing they found statistical significance in squirting PSA increases with only the remaining 4/7 having increases in PSA, 2 of which PSA concentration=0).

Now the previously ellipsed sentence was this one:

Differences of urea, creatinine, and uric acid concentrations among BSU, S, and ASU did not reach statistical signification.

So this graph was a mess. There are absolutely NO conclusions that can be made. It's not even that the differences weren't statistically significant: there are no consistent patterns in the data. Not one. Creatinine, urea, and uric acid go up for some women, down for others, stay the same, aren't statistically significant. I can only speculate that these numbers are related to traditional urine that was present in the bladder beforehand.

Ultrasound scans

Basically they do ultrasound scans of the bladder before squirting, but after urination, and find that the bladder is empty. Then they find during squirting the bladder fills up. After squirting, the bladder empties.

Basically, an empty bladder fills up during squirting and empties after squirting.

A reasonable conclusion is that the bladder uniquely fills up with some liquid that contains PSA as well as renal secretions during sexual stimulation and that liquid is emitted from the bladder during orgasm

Instead, the authors spend most of the discussion referencing other old papers, arguing this fluid amount is too large to be considered female ejaculation (which is an old argument), disagreeing with Wimpssinger et al and Zavic et al,and in one sentence, discounting their ONLY statistically significant finding with this sentence

The observation that most of the participants had detectable PSA concentrations in the squirting fluid (S) may be explained by the fact that their prostate had been mechanically stimulated during sexual activity.

And what about the 1/4 women who had even more PSA than the others?

Moreover, the observation that one of the participants showed sizable PSA concentrations in BSU remains unclear

That's it.

Then the authors spend more time attacking Wimpssinger et al, telling them that although women reported to Wimpssinger et al that squirting enriched their sex-life, those women probably didn't know what they were talking about

In a recent study, Wimpissinger et al. [2] reported that around four of five women with female ejaculation (or squirting) considered that this event represented an “enrichment” of their sexual life. Unfortunately, these authors have included all cases of very limited fluid expulsion (0.3 mL) and those of abundant liquid emission (15 to over 150 mL). As the volume of the emitted fluid presumably exerts an influence on the women's perception of this event, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that abundant squirting during sexual activity may represent a real problem to some of them.

These authors clearly set out with a conclusion in mind and to disprove Wimpsinger, ignored all statistically significant findings in their own paper, to conclude that it was urine AND that it does not enrich women's sex lives, despite women saying it does.

Pregnancy and corresponding prenatal care or abortion are a part of healthcare. Planned parenthood provides both. Only 3% of all services planned parenthood provides are abortions. You don't pay for them. And Jehovah's witnesses pay into the government, which provide healthcare subsidies for insurance, which can then be used for blood transfusions. Does that mean we should exclude blood transfusions from marketplace insurance due to so-called indirect funding that are against their beliefs? What about pig heart valves which are indirectly funded by taxes paid by Orthodox Jews? The fact that funding cannot legally go to abortions is absurd on its own. The notion of indirect funding is beyond that.

Guns aren't healthcare. I believe abortion/ healthcare is a right, but funds are unfortunately not allowed to be used for the former. Also I'm not sure if you realize you're arguing with a different person then you were before. I agree with the other person, funds are not applied to abortions and indirect funding is a faulty argument, as you already agreed. Funding for health clinics, which is what planned parenthood is, is normal not "special"

Planned Parenthood is not special. It received federal funding similar to many other federally qualified health centers that receive federal funding.

Second of all, there need to be federally funded abortion clinics (which exist independent of planned parenthood) that provide low-cost subsidized abortions--it's a right. Especially because if private clinics and hospitals could refuse to do abortions, women should still have access to them because it is a right.

Finally, everyone is not insured. People can take fines, but more importantly, in states that have not accepted funds for the affordable care act/are not participating in the marketplace, people below certain incomes are exempt from being covered. For example, in texas, if you make over $5000 you don't qualify for medicaid on the state level but if you qualify for medicaid on the federal level, you can't shop in the marketplace. Anyone with that income is stuck in uninsured limbo, but are exempt from paying the fine.

Because your doctor won't take someone who is uninsured for a reasonable price.

Planned parenthood provides public health services on a sliding scale. They address public health concerns such as sexually transmitted diseases and cancer, and they do it as severely discounted rates.